Competition is important. I think it's vital for all three companies to stay in the business in order to keep the industry healthy.
More than one, actually.
1.) No where near bankrupt
2.) Continues to sell console-selling exclusives
3.) They have recieved PROFIT last quarter
4.) Already starting a next gen console developement
5.) And, if it didn't get past your thick skull, One console with poor sales does not mean death to the company. How the flying F__k does it take over 2 years for people to realize this?!
Fusioncode said:
Because they both have successful next gen consoles. |
Nintendo makes profit. Sony and MS seeing diminishing returns. Sales don't equal success. Profit does. Wii U is more successful than PS4 or XBO based on profit alone and that't the point of a business. PS4 doing nice now but diminishing returns won't matter how many they sold.
Nintendo innovates throught hardware then devlop their games to full take advantage of the hardware to make either a new control scheme or mechanic and just overall run perfect on that hardware.
| Fusioncode said: I don't see why Nintendo's output would change. SEGA doesn't have anywhere near the roster of IPs that Nintendo has. Nintendo is already ignoring a bunch of their classic IPs like Ice Climbers and F-Zero. |
You ever play SEGA's games? They sure as hell do have the roster and could possibly surpass Nintendo. SEGA's classic IP library and overall IP's is extensive VERY extensive.
't
Bofferbrauer said:
Still won't save SONY if they keep having losses like they have almost every single year for a decade now. Developing a console is both time and money consuming, let alone producing and selling them, so going third party isn't as impossible as often pictured for them, especially if some future console flops. As for Nintendo, they generally design their games first and then the hardware they would need for them, which is how motion controls, dual screen and tablet controller came to be. This would be impossible if they can't design their own hardware, and the quality of their games may suffer in the progres. Nintendo would also stop producing smaller game series since they can't generate enough income on their own, which would probably be the final nail to the coffins of F-Zero, Metroid and Starfox, to just name a few. And from a more general perspective: Is there even enough of an audience for Nintendo games on the SONY/Microsoft consoles? Doesn't really look like it, really. So it might actually get even worse for them if they went 3rd party. |
The Xbox brand also isn't on as solid ground as people would like to believe, either. There have been rumblings from Microsoft investors to discontinue or spin off the Xbox line due to the fact that it's far weaker than the rest of the company. The company as a whole is hugely profitable, but that doesn't mean its investors want to keep throwing potential profits down a sinkhole to win a Pyrrhic second-place finish when that money could be used to invest in something Microsoft is better suited for that has higher profit margins than a game console.
As far as Nintendo going third-party, you're absolutely right. Almost all third parties have abandoned everything but a few reliable core franchises that are rehashed annually, and that goes for Sega as well, and almost none of them will greenlight a new game concept unless they're convinced that it can be annualized. EA's profits are driven almost entirely by EA sports, Activison's by Skylanders and Call of Duty, Ubisoft's by Assassin's Creed, Konami's by PES and Yu-Gi-Oh, Sega's by Sonic, Capcom's by Street Fighter and Resident Evil, and so on. Where are Castlevania, Contra, Vigilante 8, Nightmare Creatures, Ultima, Prince of Persia, Breath of Fire? All abandoned because they cannot be adequately monetized. Take-Two starves between Grand Theft Auto releases. I don't think Nintendo would buck this trend, and it would be all Mario and Pokemon from there on out.
| burninmylight said: That first sentence is why this whole argument is stupid and this thread should be locked. This isn't socialism, and Nintendo doesn't owe it to you or anyone to go third party and "benefit the entire industry." If that were the case, Sony should have went third party after two to three years of being down in the dumps with the PS3. Also, Nintendo is no longer losing money on the WIi U. If you're saying it should go 3P based on that, then again, Sony should have gone third party after the PS3 and MS should have gone third party from... the very beginning, because its Xbox brand hasn't made it a penny, ever. I'm not labeling you a Nintendo hater, by the way. I just think you should spend more than five seconds meditating on that thought that comes to your head before making a thread on it. |
Damn.
"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"
| baloofarsan said: Here is an analysis about why Nintendo needs both hardware AND software: http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=740455 TLDR - Nintendo have profit (not only revenue like the others) from one business only: they need the money from ALL of their sales - hardware+ software + peripherals + online - to make a living. |
Assuming they can sell hardware at profits.
I personally agree with the OP, but only because having a console makes no sense for NIntendo. Let'sbreak down you'd want a console in the first place: liscensing money. If you have a monopoly for consoles you get maximum liscensing money from third party publishers. Nintendo always relied on this money from their handhelds and to an extent their consoles. Third party sales on Nintendo machines are currently negligable. So why burn through so much cash on R&D on a game console? Is it worth it just so you don't have to give up liscensing money? Hardware is also very difficult to sell at a profit, unless you're Apple. Do I think Nintendo should give up right away on hardware though? No. But if they don't do well with their next hardware then Nintendo really needs to re-evaluate their business. They can't always live off of the Yen exchange.
torok said:
But the big issue is that most gaming companies have the habit of screwing up badly and that means a bad gen. It doesn't look that bad, but one single bad gen can be 5 or 7 years of awful sales. It's not like Samsung realeasing a bad Galaxy S: they can fix it next year. Atari, Sega, MS, Nintendo, they sometimes do things right and sometimes they screw up badly. Sony usually doesn't screw up, or at least they have a light screw up that is fixable mid-gen (PS3): - Big screw ups: Atari 5200/7800, all Genesis add-ons, Saturn, N64, GC, Wii U, OG XBox - Light screw ups: Dreamcast, PS3, X1 |
Seriously?? Dreamcast a light screw up? The console that has been outsold by the big screw ups that are the N64,GC and soon to outsell it Wii U?
One Reason? to piss off all the Sony and Xbox fanboys who want them to. Nintendo is in this fight for the long run...and they have a fanbase that can support their methods...even if the mainstream gamer culture doesn't care to participate. Nintendo developers are artists and don't always have to cater to the bottom line. Nintendo continues to innovate on the interface front and continues to make the other hardware manufacturers change their strategies...it's just beautiful to watch.
Neodegenerate said:
|
And Nintendo isn't already influenced by MS and Sony to stay relevant?
I don't think Splatoon would do well on PS4 and X1. I also don't think it's going to do well on WiiU. That could be easily attributed to Wonderful 101 too.
Annual releases like AC and CoD aren't the reason for that.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
